Student success in higher education

1. StudentSuccess
Student
Success
inHigher
Education

2. A Division of the American Federation of Teachers
RANDI WEINGARTEN, President
ANTONIA CORTESE, Secretary-Treasurer
LORRETTA JOHNSON, Executive Vice President
Higher Education Program and Policy Council
Chair: SANDRA SCHROEDER, AFT Vice President, AFT Washington
Vice Chair: DERRYN MOTEN, Alabama State University Faculty-Staff Alliance
BARBARA BOWEN, AFT Vice President, Professional Staff Congress, City University of New York
PHILLIP SMITH, AFT Vice President, United University Professions, State University of New York
TOM AUXTER, United Faculty of Florida
JASON BLANK, Rhode Island College Chapter/AFT
ELAINE BOBROVE, United Adjunct Faculty of New Jersey
ORA JAMES BOUEY, United University Professions, SUNY
PERRY BUCKLEY, Cook County College Teachers Union
JOHN BRAXTON, Faculty & Staff Federation of the Community College of Philadelphia
CHARLES CLARKE, Monroe Community College Faculty Association
ADRIENNE EATON, Rutgers Council of AAUP Chapters
FRANK ESPINOZA, San Jose/Evergreen Faculty Association
CARL FRIEDLANDER, Los Angeles College Faculty Guild
JAMES GRIFFITH, University of Massachusetts Faculty Federation
BONNIE HALLORAN, Lecturers’ Employee Organization
MARTIN HITTELMAN, California Federation of Teachers
ARTHUR HOCHNER, Temple Association of University Professionals
KRISTEN INTEMANN, Associated Faculty of Montana State, Bozeman
BRIAN KENNEDY, AFT-Wisconsin
HEIDI LAWSON, Graduate Employees’ Organization, University of Illinois-Chicago
JOHN McDONALD, Henry Ford Community College Federation of Teachers
GREG MULCAHY, Minnesota State College Faculty
MARK RICHARD, United Faculty of Miami-Dade College
DAVID RIVES, AFT Oregon
JULIETTE ROMANO, United College Employees of the Fashion Institute of Technology
ELLEN SCHULER MAUK, Faculty Association at Suffolk Community College
ELINOR SULLIVAN, University Professionals of Illinois
DONNA SWANSON, Central New Mexico Employee Union
NICHOLAS YOVNELLO, Council of New Jersey State College Locals
AFT Higher Education Staff
LAWRENCE N. GOLD, Director
CRAIG P. SMITH, Deputy Director
LINDSAY A. HENCH, Senior Associate
CHRISTOPHER GOFF, Associate
LISA HANDON, Administrative Assistant
KEVIN WASHINGTON, Administrative Assistant
© 2011 American Federation of Teachers, afl-cio (AFT). Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute
copies of this work for nonprofit educational purposes, provided that copies are distributed at or below cost, and that
the author, source and copyright notice are included on each copy.

3. ST UD EN T SU C C ESS | 1
T
he most critical issue facing higher
education today is how to provide access to
instruction and services that will enable many
more students to fulfill their postsecondary
aspirations. Education, being both a public and a private
good, brings together many of the forces of change in our
society and creates vast and unceasing debate. The paper
you are about to read, prepared by the higher education
leadership of the American Federation of Teachers
(AFT), states what we think needs to be done to help
college students achieve educational success. The AFT
is a national union of 1.5 million members that includes
approximately 175,000 faculty and professional staff
members in the nation’s colleges and universities.
As chairwoman of the national AFT Higher Education
program and policy council, I invite you to engage in our
discussion and in activities that will result from it. As the
president of AFT Washington, a previous president of AFT
Seattle Community College, Local 1789 and as a part-time,
then a full-time professor of English at my institution, I
have had unique opportunities to observe faculty, staff,
administrations, education bureaucracies and students
at their work. I know that we want to work together for
the common good—the good of our profession, our
institutions and the people we teach.
As a leader of a representative union, I understand the
union’s responsibility to further the interests of our
members. A large part of that consists of working to ensure
that the labor of AFT members is well compensated and
that their employment conditions are fair, secure and
rewarding.
But that is far from all of it. The AFT is also a union which
believes that advancing the interests of our members
means furthering their professional as well as their
economic objectives—and it is not an exaggeration to
say that student success is what AFT Higher Education
members are all about. Making a difference in the lives of
students is why faculty and staff members choose to be in
the academy, why they go to work each day, why they keep
up with the latest scholarship in their disciplines, why they
spend so much time meeting with students and assessing
their work. Day in and day out, the nation’s college
faculty and staff demonstrate a high level of personal
and professional commitment to students, to higher
education, to their communities and to the future of the
world we live in. The following report is issued in the spirit
of that commitment.
Sandra Schroeder
March 2011
Foreword

4. ExecutiveSummary
2 | A FT HI GHE R E DUCATION
THE FOLLOWING THREE PAGES PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF AFT HIGHER EDUCATION’S PLAN TO HELP
STUDENTS LEARN HOW TO GET MORE OUT OF THEIR COLLEGE EXPERIENCE.

5. ST UD EN T SU C C ESS | 3
I
n 2010, aft president randi weingarten and the
union’s college and university leadership began plan-
ning an initiative to demonstrate the union’s ongoing
commitment to place student success at the center of
its higher education agenda. The initiative, still in its early
stages, reflects and draws upon the work of our members,
the frontline faculty and staff who make a positive differ-
ence in the lives of their students every day. It also draws
upon what students tell us they want and need from their
college experience, reinforced by the results of student fo-
cus groups conducted for AFT to launch the initiative.
College student success is a major issue today in govern-
ment and policy circles. AFT members agree that a renewed
emphasis on student success is critical because, as Presi-
dent Obama stresses, the number of students with a college
education is not as high as it should be, and college student
retention rates are not as high as any educator would want
them to be. The gap in college student success among vari-
ous racial and ethnic groups also is unacceptably large.
A major aim of the student success initiative is to more
effectively bring the voice of frontline faculty and staff—
along with their knowledge of pedagogy and their ex-
perience with students—into the growing policy debate
over college curriculum, teaching and assessment. The
work began by conducting the student focus groups and
engaging with key policymakers and experts in the field.
Other initial aspects of the initiative include the develop-
ment of a national website and data center on student
success issues (www.whatshouldcount.org)
and an effort to help AFT Higher Education affiliates
consider developing activities oriented toward student
success on their own campuses. The report you are about
to read is an important component of the initiative, rep-
resenting the union’s first effort to delineate key elements
of college student success, to suggest ways to implement
effective programs, and to outline the roles and responsi-
bilities of all higher education stakeholders in achieving
student success.
Origins—and Shortcomings—of the
National Focus on Student Success
Much of the attention in higher education policy circles
today is focused on how to help more students gain ac-
cess to higher education and then succeed by attaining
a degree or certificate. Over the years, most of the work
focused on the access side of the equation, particularly on
ensuring an adequate level of federal student aid as well as
state institutional support. Now, in the face of dwindling
public resources, the policy debate has increasingly shift-
ed from “access” to “success” issues, such as retention and
evidence of learning outcomes—in other words, to what
happens to students after they enter college. The general
emphasis has been on holding institutions accountable for
achieving measurable outputs—like high graduation rates
and standardized test scores—and on developing various
curriculum frameworks. However, AFT members believe
there are some significant problems in today’s public dis-
course about accountability and outcomes.
First, on the technical level, there are very serious
problems with the federal formula for computing gradua-
tion rates and with the validity of various testing measures
and their impact on the curriculum.
Second, too many policy discussions of student suc-
cess avoid serious consideration of financial factors, as
though investment in learning is not connected to student
success. To the contrary—the at-risk population of nontra-
ditional students who participated in the recent AFT focus
groups demonstrates the intricate connection between
student success and resources. These students report, for
example, that paying for college is just about the biggest
obstacle they face in completing their studies. Concerns
about finances also lead students to work too many hours,
which hampers their chances for success. Finally, stu-
dents report that large class sizes, limited course offerings
and difficulty in getting enough personal attention from
overworked faculty and staff are key obstacles to their
achievement.
Third, too many policy discussions about accountabil-
ity have failed to incorporate the views and experiences
of frontline faculty and staff. The AFT believes that the
disengagement between workers on the ground and the
accountability movement needs to be addressed if we are
to achieve positive and lasting results for students.
Approaching Student Success
How, then, should the academy approach today’s student
success issues?
First, the work must begin with a shared understanding
at the institutional level of how student success is to be de-
fined. AFT members approach student success in broader

6. terms than quick degree attainment or high standardized
test scores—they usually define student success as the
achievement of the student’s own, often developing, educa-
tion goals. Our members not only teach students who may
be on track to obtain degrees or certificates, but they also
teach students who are looking primarily for job training
without earning a formal credential or for the acquisition
of professional skills to enhance their career opportunities.
Other students are studying academic subjects strictly for
learning’s sake. Adding to the complexity, students often
adjust their goals throughout their college years. For these
reasons, measuring student success solely in terms of
degree attainment reflects a misunderstanding of today’s
academy. To understand the realities of student success, we
must begin to identify ways to elicit information on student
goals throughout the educational process and to ensure
that reliable data on student goals are fed back into the cur-
riculum development and assessment processes. It is also
important—and specifically called for by the students who
participated in our focus groups—to ensure that students
have multiple opportunities to assess and reassess their
goals through a rich process of advisement or counseling.
Second, campus discussions on student success
should be undertaken with a clear recognition of the
thoughtful work on curriculum and assessment already
going on at most campuses, and with a commitment not
to be perpetually reinventing the wheel.
Third, once a broad understanding of student success
is achieved, professionals at the institutional level need to
collaborate systematically on curriculum and assessment
in accordance with this understanding—, with faculty and
professional staff in the lead. Because institutional mis-
sions and student bodies are so diverse, and because it
is important to capitalize on the mix of faculty expertise
particular to each institution, the AFT believes that plan-
ning for student success should be conducted at the insti-
tutional level rather than across institutions or at the state
or national levels. In this regard, our members reject the
idea that institutional outputs can be compared easily like
the ingredients on a cereal box. The one constant in higher
education is diversity, not uniformity, and diversity is also
its greatest strength.
Fourth, collaboration should proceed with an under-
standing that frontline faculty members and staff should
drive the processes of curriculum development, teaching
and assessment to ensure that education practices are ef-
fective and practical in the real-life classroom.
The AFT student success report delineates a number of
common elements of student success cutting across dif-
ferent programs and disciplines that the union believes
can be viewed as a framework for the type of educational
experience all students should have in some form. Those
elements, described in greater detail in the report, include:
Exposure to knowledge in a variety of areas;
The development of intellectual abilities necessary
for gathering information and processing it; and
Applied skills, both professional and technical. These
elements are laid out in a chart on page XX.
In our view, these elements offer one acceptable frame-
work (certainly not the only one) to focus professional
thinking, collaboration and planning around curriculum,
teaching and assessment. In any case, however, the spe-
cific categories and details are not the most important
thing. The most important thing is to have a deliberative
and intentional perspective among individual faculty
members and the institution’s body of faculty based on
advance planning and collaboration—and also on the
evidence from focus groups that students want and benefit
from a high degree of clarity and interconnection in their
coursework.
Implementation
To ensure that curriculum and assessment materials
translate into real gains for students, the report recom-
mends that:
Faculty should be responsible for leading discussions
about how the elements of student success are further articu-
lated and refined to help students at their institution succeed.
The implementation process should respect the prin-
ciples of academic freedom.
Professional staff should be closely involved in the
process, particularly with regard to how the elements
will be articulated vis-à-vis academic advising and career
counseling.
Implementing common elements for student success
not only should respect differences among disciplines and
programs, but also should strive for an integrated educa-
tional experience for students.
New curriculum frameworks, assessments or ac-
countability mechanisms should not re-create the wheel;
Assessing the effectiveness of this process should fo-
cus on student success, academic programs and student
services but should not be used to evaluate the perfor-
mance of individual faculty or staff.
4 | A FT HI GHE R E DUCATION

7. Roles, Responsibilities and
Accountability
AFT members overwhelmingly favor reasonable
accountability mechanisms; they also believe that
accountability needs to flow naturally from clearly
delineated responsibilities, including the responsibility
faculty and staff have in the learning process. It takes
the work of many stakeholders to produce a successful
educational experience. Each stakeholder has unique
responsibilities as well as a shared responsibility to
work collaboratively with the other stakeholders. This
report puts forward a listing of roles and responsibilities
focused on four groups of stakeholders—faculty and
staff members, institutional administrators, students
and government. Under this kind of rubric, individual
stakeholders have clear responsibilities for which they
can be held accountable, and no individual stakeholder is
solely responsible for achieving ends only partly in his or
her control.
Retention and Attainment
Much of the policy debate on accountability has been
tied to the idea that college attainment and completion
rates are too low. Even though the measurement of
graduation rates is deeply flawed, AFT members fully
agree that retention is not what it should be and that
some action must be taken to improve the situation. Our
recommendations include:
1. Strengthen preparation in preK-12 by increasing
the public support provided to school systems and the
professionals who work in them. As noted earlier, college
faculty and staff at the postsecondary and preK-12 levels
should be provided financial and professional support
to coordinate standards between the two systems and
minimize disjunctions.
2. Strengthen federal and state student assistance
so students can afford to enter college and remain
with their studies despite other obligations. Again,
students report that paying for college is an overwhelming
challenge, and that they must work a significant number
of hours to support their academic career, often at the
expense of fully benefiting from their classes. We cannot
expect to keep balancing the books in higher education
by charging students out-of-reach tuition and dismantling
government and institutional support for a healthy system
of academic staffing.
3. Institute or expand student success criteria along
the lines of the student success elements described
earlier (or an equally valid one). This is best based
on deliberate, multidisciplinary planning in individual
institutions led by frontline faculty and staff. Given
that another one of students’ most called-for needs is
assistance with developing a clear path toward their
education goals, the aim is to provide clarity to the
educational experience for students along with other
stakeholders, including government and the general
public.
4. Coordinate learning objectives with student
assessment. The desire to compare learning across
different institutions on a single scale is understandable.
However, we believe that student learning would be
diminished, not enhanced, by administering national
assessments that overly homogenize “success” to what is
easily measurable and comparable.
5. Provide greater government funding and reassess
current expenditure policies to increase support for
instruction and staffing. We cannot expect student
success when institutions are not devoting resources
to a healthy staffing system and are allowing students’
education to be built on the exploitation of contingent
labor and the loss of full-time jobs. The system of higher
education finance needs to be re-examined so colleges
and universities can fulfill the nation’s higher education
attainment goals.
6. Improve the longitudinal tracking of students as
they make their way through the educational system and
out into the world beyond. The current federal graduation
formula is much too narrow. We need to look at all
students over a more substantial period of time, and we
have to take into account the great diversity in student
goals if we are to account properly for student success.
In conclusion, the AFT believes that academic unions,
working with other stakeholders, can play a central role
in promoting student success. Making lasting progress,
however, will have to begin at tables where faculty and
staff members hold a position of respect and leadership.
This student success report is scarcely the last word on
the subject—it is, in fact, the union’s first word on the
subject, and we expect many ideas presented here to
be refined in conversations all over the country. The
important thing is that those conversations about student
success start taking place in many more places than they
are today.
ST UD EN T SU C C ESS | 5

8. 6 | A FT HI GHE R E DUCATION
Today, more students than ever are attending community
colleges and universities. There has been a recent upsurge
in college enrollment spurred in part by the state of the
economy from 2008 to 2010. At the same time, however,
the ability of public higher education to accommodate
growing enrollment has been handicapped in critical
ways. College costs continue to rise. State and local
governments have decreased their level of investment
in public colleges and universities, and institutions have
responded by cutting back the share of spending directed
to instruction. Government disinvestment has resulted in
higher tuitions which, in turn, have left students assuming
unreasonable levels of debt to attend college and, worse,
prevented many from enrolling altogether or persisting in
their studies. Funding for federal student assistance, until
just recently, failed to keep pace with rising costs, and the
recent gains made to the federal Pell Grant program are
always in danger of being rolled back. Students from racial
and ethnic minorities and other first-generation college
students have suffered most from these inadequacies.
With enrollments on the rise and without a comparable
public investment in higher education, the capacity of
public colleges and universities to serve students is now
strained beyond the limit. Unfortunately, it is becoming
commonplace to see academic programs curtailed or
eliminated and corners being cut on student services
in an attempt to maintain a “bare bones” budget. To
meet the influx of students, instructional staffing is being
built increasingly on a part-time and full-time corps
of “contingent” faculty members without permanent
jobs and without basic economic and professional
supports. America is no longer the world leader in college
attainment. Student retention rates are far lower than
educators want or the nation should accept.
At the same time, one fact is still incontrovertible:
Most people who complete a postsecondary degree or
certificate program1
do better in every aspect of their lives.
In March 2004, the national average total personal income
of workers 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree was
$48,417, roughly $23,000 higher than for those with a high
school diploma. For those with an associate’s degree, the
average total personal income of workers 25 and older was
$32,470, still $7,400 more than those with a high school
1. See, for instance, The Investment Payoff: A 50-State Analysis of
the Public and Private Benefits of Higher Education (2005) by the
Institute for Higher Education Policy.
The National Discussion
H
alf a century ago, the united states undertook a historic commitment
to make an affordable college education available to all Americans, regardless
of their financial means. At the federal level, this commitment led to the estab-
lishment of a structure of student financial assistance that has grown more and more
elaborate over the years. At the state level, the commitment to college access for all re-
sulted in the opening and funding of thousands of public universities and community
colleges. Hundreds of thousands of college students, most of whom would never have
been able to attend college in another era, have taken successful advantage of these poli-
cies. The federal and state commitment to public higher education has been one of the
clearest public policy successes in American history.

9. ST UD EN T SU C C ESS | 7
diploma .2
Providing greater opportunities for students
from all walks of life to succeed in college needs to be a top
issue on the national agenda.
Recognizing the growing importance of a college
education, it is not surprising that public discussion and
debate about student success issues is at an all-time
high. This has been driven in part by the strong priority
placed on higher education by the Obama administration.
Overall, the emphasis on student success is a positive
development. Our members fully agree that student
retention is not as high as it should be, and they are eager
to play a leading role in improving conditions.
However, with growing alarm, many of us have been
following today’s policy debates about student success
issues such as curriculum, assessment and accountability.
Unfortunately, some of the fevered discussion on this
subject has not been as constructive as it could be, nor as
grounded in the experiences of frontline educators as it
should be. When it comes to generating solutions to the
problems facing students and colleges, we have seen too
heavy an emphasis on solutions that are overly simplistic
and fail to address the reality on campus.
Too often, AFT members see proposals put forward to
measure things because they are measurable, not because
they really tell us anything new or important about the
educational program. For example, our members often
witness the imposition of “pay-for-performance” formulas
that define institutional success primarily in terms of a
high graduation rate. This is problematic for a number
of reasons: first, because the graduation formula is
notoriously flawed (see inset) and also because pay-for-
performance programs can create perverse incentives for
institutions either to lower their educational standards
(to achieve a higher graduation or job placement rate) or,
conversely, to raise their entrance requirements so they
can “cherry pick” students who are likely to give them high
graduation numbers.
There are further issues. One is the proliferation of account-
ability proposals designed around the perspective that
higher education can be seen and assessed through the
same lens as elementary and secondary education. In fact,
the two levels of education are fundamentally different. Ele-
mentary and secondary education is mandatory and aimed
primarily at producing a somewhat uniform set of educa-
tion outcomes grade by grade. Higher education, on the
other hand, is pursued and paid for by adults who choose
2. Ibid.
institutions and programs to meet their own very diverse
education and career goals. This diversity is a great strength
of American colleges and universities, and therefore our
members are concerned that overstandardizing assessment
would weaken rather than strengthen education.
In the same vein, a great deal of discussion about
accountability seems to focus on producing exactly
comparable data among all disciplines and all institutions.
This perspective, in turn, has led to the generation of a
number of standardized student assessments despite
very mixed expert opinion of their reliability and value.3
Too often, AFT members report that they are facing the
imposition of standardized tests, which they believe
to be divorced from the institution’s learning program
and insensitive to the variety of education objectives
in different disciplines. For example, tests such as
the Collegiate Learning Assessment may offer some
valuable information pertaining to a particular sample of
students in a specific time or place. However, questions
have been raised about whether the CLA is a reliable
assessment of the growth in student learning from one
year to the next—our members are concerned about
whether it is appropriate to draw sweeping conclusions
3. See Trudy Banta’s “A Warning on Measuring Learning Out-
comes” (2007): www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/01/26/banta
FEDERAL GRADUATION RATE FORMULA
THE MOST GLARING EXAMPLE OF THE DISTANCE
between policy and reality is the current federal
graduation-rate formula, which serves as the basis
of a great deal of higher education policymaking.
The problem is that the federal graduation formula
fails to account for more than half of today’s
undergraduates and therefore presents a skewed
picture of what is going on in the classroom,
particularly at institutions serving large numbers
of nontraditional students. No attainment formula
could capture all the nuances of student attainment,
but the federal graduation-rate formula would
be much more accurate if it tracked students for
a longer period of time and if it tracked part-time
students, students who transfer from one college to
another, students who do not finish their degrees
within 150 percent of the “normal” time, and the
many students who are seeking neither a degree
nor a certificate but who attend classes to pick up
job skills or for personal enrichment.

10. 8 | A FT HI GHE R E DUCATION
from student samples and employ those conclusions to
evaluate institution-wide student learning and teacher
performance.
The AFT believes that a lot of what goes wrong with so
many curriculum, teaching and assessment proposals
is caused by the fact that classroom educators—along
with their knowledge of pedagogy and experience with
students—are not often at the center of the program
development process. The perspective of frontline
educators should assume a much more prominent
role in public discussion about student success and
about the most appropriate forms of accountability for
assessing it.
Frontline faculty and staff can contribute greatly to the
development of policies that expand student access and
success while preserving the fundamental aspects of a
successful college experience—a diverse offering of degree
and certificate programs in which students can learn in
ways that best suit them, one in which assessment and
accountability mechanisms support student learning as
the rich and complex experience we in the classroom
know it to be. We do not want to be left with a major
investment of resources that produces nothing more than
a complicated, time-consuming maze of data that tells
us little or nothing of importance about student learning
but reorients college curricula to a lowest-common-
denominator, teach-to-the-test curriculum.
Finally, it seems clear that policymakers, policy analysts
and frontline educators are often talking past one another
on issues of student success and accountability or, more
frequently, not really talking at all. We need to break
down these walls to search for the best solutions to the
challenges facing our students. Educators and all the
other higher education stakeholders need to talk more
frequently and candidly about these issues with open
minds and a willingness to consider different perspectives.
“Whatgoeswrong
withsomany
curriculum,
teachingand
assessment
proposalsis
causedbythefact
thatclassroom
educators...arenot
oftenatthecenter
oftheprogram
development
process.”

11. ST UD EN T SU C C ESS | 9
AFT members, however, usually think of student success
somewhat more broadly—defining student success as the
achievement of the student’s own education goals. Our
members teach not only students who may be on track to
obtain degrees or certificates, but they also teach students
who are looking primarily for job training without earning
a formal credential or to acquire professional skills to
enhance their career opportunities. Other students are
studying academic subjects strictly for learning’s sake.
Adding to the complexity, students often adjust their goals
throughout their college years.
That is why we believe that measuring student success
solely in terms of degree attainment reflects a misunder-
standing of today’s academy. To understand the realities of
student success, the AFT believes we must begin to iden-
tify ways to assess student academic goals throughout the
educational pathway and—specifically called for by the
students who participated in our focus groups—ensure that
students have multiple opportunities to assess and reassess
their goals through a rich process of advisement or coun-
seling. In short, we believe agreement needs to be reached
among stakeholders on what student success encompasses
and how information on student success can be acquired.
The next question, then, is how to continually strengthen
the learning experience for students. Are there particular
frameworks or ways of doing things that best promote
success, given that the one constant in higher education
is diversity, not uniformity? Over the last year, AFT Higher
Education leaders worked to uncover common elements
of student success, cutting across different programs and
disciplines, that can be viewed as a framework for the
type of educational experience all students should have in
some form. In doing so, we found that although there are
many different curriculum rubrics going around education
circles, there is actually a great deal of consensus about
the elements of good learning. Those elements, we believe,
include (1) exposure to knowledge in a variety of areas,
(2) the development of intellectual abilities necessary for
gathering information and processing it, and (3) applied
professional and technical skills. The chart on the next
page elaborates on this.
These elements, it should be noted, emphasize the
importance of connecting theoretical and practical
learning. The balance of academic material and the
learning context obviously will differ substantially in
different education settings, particularly between strictly
academic and career-oriented programs. For example,
a student studying computer-assisted design at a
community college with the goal of attaining a one-year
certificate will experience a different mix and depth of
the elements than a student studying anthropology at a
research university with the goal of attaining a master’s
degree. Even in the most training-oriented coursework,
however, good programs will work to incorporate broad
perspectives into the curriculum because understanding
them will enhance the professional and personal success
of students in any walk of life.
The Elements Of Student Success
E
veryone agrees that the higher education curriculum, teaching, assessment
and accountability all need to be focused squarely on student success. At the same
time, everyone does not agree on what student success actually means. Some ana-
lysts emphasize the achievement of a baccalaureate degree; others are engaged in a na-
tional drive to expand the number of community and technical college degrees. Still oth-
ers emphasize the need to increase opportunities to attain formal training certifications.

12. 10 | A FT H IGHER E DUCATIO N
The elements of student success listed above offer one
way (certainly not the only way) to focus professional
thinking, collaboration and planning around the
institution’s teaching program and assessment. There
are several other frameworks in play that address similar
issues. The framework here is not posed in conflict or
even in contradistinction to any other. The AFT hopes
that our members and other stakeholders find this
perspective helpful. The important thing, however, is not
any particular rubric but to begin, continue or improve
a deliberative and intentional process for achieving
student success based on the evidence that students
want and would benefit from a high degree of clarity and
interconnection in their coursework.
Implementation
Although there appears to be much consensus on the
elements of student learning, our members are concerned
that most plans follow either a multi-institutional or top-
down model (or both) in implementing student learning
plans, and this makes for frameworks that cannot be
carried out effectively on the ground. Because institutional
missions and student bodies are so diverse, and because
it is always important to capitalize on the mix of expertise
at each institution, our members strongly believe that the
process of program development should be conducted
at the college or university level, although guidelines
developed by disciplinary organizations or other scholars
may certainly inform the process. Frontline faculty
members should drive this process in order to ensure that
educational practices are effective and practical in the
classroom. The union believes effective implementation
needs to be based on the following guidelines:
1. Faculty should be responsible for leading any
discussions about how the elements of student success
are further articulated and refined to help students at their
institution succeed.
2. The implementation process should respect the
principles of academic freedom.
3. Discussions about implementation should begin
within disciplines and programs and then expand to the
wider institutional curriculum. This is essential because
it makes much more sense to find commonalities at
the disciplinary level and then work up toward the
institutional level, rather than forcing a top-down fit.
ELEMENTS OF STUDENT SUCCESS
KNOWLEDGE INTELLECTUAL ABILITIES PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SKILLS
All students should achieve an
appropriate level of knowledge in a
particular field of study and have a
level of exposure to:
Knowledge of the physical and
natural world
Intercultural knowledge and
competence
Civic knowledge and
engagement
Ethics reasoning
A broad set of intellectual abilities
is crucial for all students, including
the ability to integrate these skills
and apply them in both academic
and practical contexts. These abilities
include:
Critical inquiry
Creative thinking
Problem solving
Independent learning
Data manipulation
Analysis and assessment of
information
Synthesis
Students should gain the ability to
apply the knowledge learned in a
particular field of study and also
have a broad set of skills that will
serve them in both academic and
professional settings. These skills
include:
Written communications
Oral communications
Quantitative literacy
Information literacy
Teamwork skills

13. ST UDEN T S U CC ES S | 11
4. Professional staff should be involved in the process,
particularly with regard to how the elements will be
articulated vis-à-vis academic advising and career
counseling.
5. Discussions about implementing common elements
for student success not only should respect differences
among disciplines and programs, but also strive for an
integrated educational experience for students.
6. Faculty and staff work on these issues constantly,
so any work that already has been done must be
acknowledged rather than approaching implementation
as reinventing the wheel.
7. Discussions should include not only how to refine the
elements to set appropriate goals for students in various
programs and at the institution in general, but should
also include curriculum design, teaching methods and
assessments.
8. Assessing the effectiveness of this process should
focus on student success, academic programs and
activities as well as on student services, and not be used to
evaluate the performance of individual faculty or staff.
“Ourmembers
stronglybelieve
thattheprocess
ofprogram
development
shouldbe
conductedat
thecollege
oruniversity
level.”

14. 12 | A FT H IGHER E DUCATIO N
Institutions of Higher Education
The organizational structure for advancing and certifying
higher learning in our society rests with public and private
institutions of higher education. The leadership of these
institutions is responsible for building and continually
replenishing the structures and conditions that promote
student success. Institutional leadership, then, is
responsible (and therefore accountable) for:
1. Securing adequate funding for the institution and
once that funding is obtained, ensuring that it is targeted
first and foremost to instruction and support services that
help students advance toward their goals. At the same
time, administrators should advocate to keep tuition
down and take whatever actions are possible to ensure
affordability, particularly by examining administrative
costs.
2. Developing a structure and level of instructional
staffing that advances student success and creates a
secure professional environment for good teaching and
scholarship. As noted earlier, colleges and universities
have greatly diminished the proportion of full-time
tenured teaching positions in favor of developing an
instructional workforce largely made up of contingent
faculty employees, particularly part-time/adjunct faculty
members, who are accorded very poor pay, very little
professional support, few or no benefits, little or no job
security, and few or no academic freedom protections. The
problem is that these instructors often are not expected
to perform many of the most essential duties of faculty—
and, in the absence of a union contract, almost always
not paid for performing them—such as meeting with
students to provide support and counsel and mentoring.
This structure is detrimental to students, particularly at-
risk students who need informed, consistent assistance in
making their way to degrees and certificates.
We must recognize that an important part of the
institutional responsibility for student success consists of
collaborating with government and other stakeholders to
expand full-time faculty opportunities and to ensure that
all faculty members have living wages, job security, office
space, benefits, professional development, and fair and
transparent evaluation practices.
3. Maintaining effective procedures to ensure that
curriculum, teaching and assessment are faculty driven.
Most particularly, institutions are responsible for ensuring
that academic policy decisions are based on the principle
of shared governance and that protections are in place to
enhance academic freedom, including due process, job
security and tenure or tenure-like protections. Given that
contingent faculty are teaching most of the undergraduate
courses in this country, access to shared governance
Roles and Responsibilities for
Achieving Student Success
I
t takes the work of many stakeholders to produce a successful educational
experience. Each stakeholder has unique responsibilities as well as the shared re-
sponsibility to work collaboratively with one another. Below is a summary framework
of the responsibilities of higher education institutions, faculty and staff members, gov-
ernment agencies and students themselves in producing a successful educational expe-
rience. These roles and responsibilities, in turn, can serve as the basis of evaluating the
institution’s success in meeting its goals.

15. ST UDEN T S U CC ES S | 13
and protection of academic freedom must extend to all
instructors.
4. Building support-service structures that advance
student success. Strong student services such as advising and
mentoring, professional development for faculty and staff,
and technological support are critical elements in helping
students succeed. Institutions should build structures
that facilitate continual interchange between faculty and
staff members in regard to sorting out responsibilities and
following the progress of individual students.
5. Supporting and coordinating recurring institution-
wide reviews of progress in carrying out the student
success agenda. Student success should be an institutional
priority. Institutions should commit to supporting
annual (or more frequent) meetings at which faculty
across departments can come together to share their best
practices for improving student learning and ensuring
student success. Frontline educators, obviously, should
play the leading role in this process.
6. Maintaining and enforcing the standards of student
responsibility listed below. Institutions should develop
clear standards for holding students accountable for their
own learning, and then communicate those standards in
ways that are easy for students to understand and act on.
7. Ensuring public transparency on such matters as
program and degree options, student attainment and
course scheduling. Along these lines, institutions should
not shrink from revealing information that uncovers
problems, including budget and fiscal management
problems, as well as information that might point the way
to improvement.
8. Helping to improve pathways from preK-12 to college.
College readiness is a significant factor in student success
and sometimes falters because the two systems are
administered separately. Institutions need to work with
school districts; secure grant funds and other sources of aid
to facilitate program development; and work with faculty
and staff, through institutional procedures and collective
bargaining contracts, to offer significant professional
rewards for faculty and staff to undertake this work.
Faculty and Staff Members
Faculty and staff members are responsible for:
1. Working individually and collaboratively with their
colleagues, tenured and nontenured, full-time and
part-time, to develop challenging curricula that are
academically strong and provide the tools students will
need to be successful in their lives when they leave the
institution.
As noted earlier, producing good educational
results is strengthened when faculty members and
staff have regular opportunities to think in a coor-
dinated, “intentioned” way about their coursework.
This includes the coursework’s relevance to the world
students will face outside academia, about the best
methods to incorporate such skills into their teaching
and how to assess the degree to which these goals are
achieved.
Regular opportunities should be taken to obtain the
views of stakeholders such as students and business
representatives, disciplinary associations, civic lead-
ers and other community organizations about the
efficacy of the educational program although, in the
final analysis, education decisions should be driven
by educators.
2. Being available and providing proactive help to
students in puzzling out the requirements of the academic
program and the course subject matter. Here again, an
academic staffing structure that limits the contributions
of part-time/adjunct and other contingent faculty
members precludes opportunities for students that can
be crucial to their success. Accessibility and availability
of instructors is a critical factor in student success,
especially in the first year or two of college and especially
for underprepared college students. At the same time,
students and administrators alike should understand that
the availability of either full- or part-time faculty members
needs to be encompassed in a manageable, flexible
workload.
3. Advising students on their career goals and the
consequences of the choices they make (e.g., the number
and nature of courses taken, the number of hours devoted
to study, the number of hours worked to help finance
their education, etc.) on the students’ ability to meet their
academic goals. This applies both to faculty members and
to professional staff.
4. Offering early and continual feedback and formative
and summative assessment of student progress. In particular,
faculty should employ assessment tools that assess students’
understanding of course content and learning styles early in
the term, and create incentives for students to engage with
faculty early and often during the course.

16. 14 | A FT H IGHER E DUCATIO N
5. Participating actively in institution-wide reviews of
progress in carrying out a student success agenda.
6. Pressing the college administration to ensure that
policy decisions are based on the principles of shared
governance, academic freedom and due process. Again,
access to shared governance and protection of academic
freedom must extend to all instructors.
7. Supporting individual faculty members in attaining
professional development, improving their pedagogy and
technological skills, and strengthening other aspects of the
faculty skill set.
Students
To further their own success, students must be
responsible, among other things, for:
1. Attending classes and keeping up with their
coursework. Students must understand that the minimum
time commitment required for success in their courses is
generally two hours on top of every classroom hour.
2. Engaging professionals in discussions about
students’ coursework and their educational and career
goals. It is imperative that students regularly seek out
faculty, academic and career counselors outside of
class. If students encounter difficulty gaining access to
these professionals, they should make this known to the
institution.
3. Periodically taking a hard look at their academic and
career goals, the time commitments they undertake and
the state of their finances to ensure that they develop a
program of study that has a good prospect for success.
Government
Government’s primary responsibility is to provide the
financial support institutions and students need to,
respectively, provide and receive a high-quality education.
As we noted earlier, government, particularly state
government, has not been fulfilling this responsibility
effectively in recent years.
1. Public institutions need to be provided sufficient
public funding to support institutional operations
(traditionally a state responsibility) and to ensure that
college is affordable for their students (both a state and
federal responsibility). Instead, most states have pursued
a policy of disinvestment in education and public services.
This has left those of us in higher education facing
impossible choices.
A real and lasting solution to the problems of college
student retention and attainment will not be achieved
without greater government support.
2. State governments need to make sure that colleges
and universities are properly staffed to ensure student
success. One of the most glaring failures of government
policy over the last generation has been the failure to
strengthen academic staffing so as to build the ranks
of full-time tenure-track faculty or provide adequate
financial and professional support to contingent faculty
members. The AFT supports a comprehensive national
campaign called the Faculty and College Excellence
initiative (FACE) to address the staffing crisis through
legislation, political action, collective bargaining, research
and communications. (See our website at aftface.org.)
3. Government needs to put structures in place ensuring
that institutions provide a high-quality educational
program for their students. Traditionally, government has
wisely avoided direct intervention at the institutional level,
relying instead on an extensive, decentralized system of
self-regulation by private accrediting agencies to fulfill
much of this responsibility. However, the growth in
attention to accountability issues during the past decade
has led to a great many proposals—some from people in
government, some from institutional organizations, some
from individual academics, think tanks and foundations,
some from accrediting agencies—to impose more direct
and measurable quality criteria for curriculum, teaching
and assessment.
Government has an obligation to hold institutions
accountable for achieving demonstrably good results—our
members believe this very strongly. However, there are
more promising ways and less promising ways to achieve
quality. In our experience, practices that rely on criteria
developed without the participation of frontline faculty
usually fail in practice because they are not connected to
the realities of the classroom or tailored to the differing
missions and strengths of individual institutions.
4. The states and the federal government both need to
ensure that students are not subject to fraud and abuse. This
applies with particular force to profit-making colleges that
often appear to be more committed to taking student tu-
ition dollars than giving students a high-quality education.

17. ST UDEN T S U CC ES S | 15
5. Governments at the state and the federal levels should
collect data that can be useful to institutions, students and
their families on key factors such as cost, student financial
assistance and college attainment. As noted earlier, the
graduation rate formula used by the federal government
is fatally flawed and should be abandoned or altered to
reflect the realities of the educational progress of today’s
students. But even as the states and the federal government
collect more information about the educational experience
of individual students, there need to be controls on how
information is collected and used to ensure student privacy
and to prevent governments from being overly involved in
academic decision-making and assessment.
6. Last but certainly not least, the federal government
needs to maintain a healthy structure of student financial
assistance that keeps pace with college costs and makes
college affordable for students who are not from affluent
families. For many years, the purchasing power of finan-
cial aid programs was permitted to languish, which made
a near mockery of the national commitment to educa-
tional access. One result, for many students, is the need
to work excessively while in college to pay tuition, which
studies have shown has a harmful effect on academic
achievement. Students who fail to enter college or who
prematurely leave college overwhelmingly cite financial
and family pressures—not academic concerns—as the
most important reason for abandoning their education.
Advocates of specific solutions, however, are obligated to
demonstrate that the ideas they are putting forward will
make an important difference in correcting the conditions
that cause retention problems in the first place.

18. 16 | A FT H IGHER E DUCATIO N
It makes no sense to implement a raft of curriculum and
assessment mechanisms if they do not have a substantial
impact on the problem you are trying to solve. In that
vein, we have examined what we consider to be the most
significant obstacles to college student success.
Inadequate academic preparation (a problem per-
ceived more strongly by faculty and staff than by students);
Inadequate student finances and college affordability,
particularly for adult and other nontraditional students;
Personal obligations such as a new child or an ill relative;
Uncertainty about academic requirements. Students
report that they often feel somewhat at sea about what
courses they should be taking, how those courses relate
to their post-college goals and what they need to do to be
successful in class;
Inaccessibility and inconvenience in terms of geogra-
phy, the scheduling of courses and the availability of on-
line options. At the same time, the community college stu-
dents in our focus groups understood there is sometimes a
trade-off between convenience, on the one hand, and high
academic standards on the other—when trade-offs are
necessary, the student focus groups overwhelmingly came
down on the side of sticking with strong academic prepa-
ration.
Difficulty in gaining access to faculty or staff who can
clarify course requirements, help students overcome prob-
lems and advise on career paths.
Given these issues, it is not hard to envision the solutions.
1. Strengthen preparation in preK-12 by increasing
the public support provided to school systems and the
professionals who work in them. As noted earlier, college
faculty and staff at the postsecondary and preK-12 levels
should be provided financial and professional support
to coordinate standards between the two systems and
minimize disjunctions.
The College Retention Issue
A
s we noted before, much of today’s public debate has focused on improv-
ing college student retention. We have described many problems in the ways by
which retention is tracked, but it is nevertheless true that college student reten-
tion is too low and is a source of great concern to AFT members. In the past, colleges and
universities answered questions about retention by asserting that American higher edu-
cation was the most expansive and highest quality in the world. That is still largely true.
However, in recent years, concern about accountability has been fueled by newer data
indicating that U.S. college attainment rates have fallen over time and in relation to other
countries. In addition, there are ample data demonstrating totally unacceptable attain-
ment disparities among students from different racial and ethnic groups and economic
strata. Short of lowering academic standards, our members will do everything possible to
address this national problem.

19. ST UDEN T S U CC ES S | 17
2. Strengthen federal and state student assistance
so students can afford to enter college and remain
with their studies despite other obligations. Again,
students report that paying for college is an overwhelming
challenge and that they must work significant hours to
support their academic career, often at the expense of
fully benefiting from their classes. We cannot expect to
keep balancing the books in higher education by charging
students out-of-reach tuition and dismantling financial
and professional support for a healthy system of academic
staffing.
3. Institute or expand student success criteria along
the lines of the construct described earlier (or an
equally valid one). This is best based on deliberate,
multidisciplinary planning at the institutional level. One of
the aims is to provide the clarity students report they need
to achieve their educational aspirations while providing
greater transparency outside the academic community.
4. Coordinate learning objectives with student
assessment. The desire to compare learning across
different institutions on a single scale is understandable.
However, we strongly believe that student learning would
be diminished, not enhanced, by administering national
assessments that overly homogenize “success” to what is
easily measurable and comparable.
5. Provide greater government funding and reassess
current expenditure policies to increase support for
instruction and staffing. There must be an investment
in a healthy staffing system rather than one built on the
exploitation of contingent labor and the loss of full-time
tenured faculty. The system of public higher education
finance in the United States needs to be revamped so that
colleges and universities have the capacity to fulfill the
nation’s attainment goals.
6. Improve the longitudinal tracking of students as
they make their way through the education system and
out into the world beyond. The current federal graduation
formula is much too narrow. We need to look at all
students over a more substantial period of time, and we
have to account for the great diversity in student goals to
account properly for student success.
All of us involved in higher education need to keep our
eye on the ball when it comes to student retention. The
union and its members will join with other stakeholders
to clarify learning criteria and connect them to effective
assessment. At the same time, if we concentrate too much
on developing ever more elaborate learning criteria
without addressing the enormous financial and staffing
issues that impede retention, we are likely to wind up
with a lot of words and a lot of bureaucracy but very little
concrete improvement for students.

20. “TheAFT
willattemptto
assistourcampus
affiliatesindesigning
contracts,reward
structuresandother
institutionalpolicies
thatadvancethe
successofthe
studentsweserve.”
18 | A FT H IGHER E DUCATIO N

21. ST UDEN T S U CC ES S | 19
W
e believe that too many of today’s
policy discussions about higher education
curriculum, teaching and assessment are
not sufficiently connected to a clear set
of understandings about what student success should
look like or about what the appropriate roles and
responsibilities of institutions, faculty and staff, students
and government should be for achieving it. In this report,
we have tried to offer a faculty and staff perspective that
we hope will advance the national dialogue on these
concerns. As this dialogue evolves, the AFT will welcome
opportunities to continue engaging on these issues
both inside and outside the union. The AFT will attempt
to assist our campus affiliates in designing contracts,
reward structures and other institutional policies that
advance the success of the students we serve. We hope
our members will be actively engaged in leading the
discussion of student success issues at their institutions.
Finally, we urge anyone reading this report to keep up
periodically with AFT’s What Should Count website at
www.whatshouldcount.org.
Conclusion

22. 20 | A FT H IGHER E DUCATIO N

23. “Accountability
needstoflownaturally
fromclearlydelineated
responsibilities,
includingthe
responsibilityfaculty
andstaffhaveinthe
learningprocess.”

24. Item no. 36-11001